| ? | BizTech Library | ||
| ? | 2GHz Notebooks | ||
| ? | Wireless ISP Info | ||
| ? | Bluetooth Report | ||
| Sign up for the free ZDNet News Dispatch: |
|||
|
|||
Posted on 07/02/2002 9:15:41 AM PDT by Dominic Harr
Why we can't trust Microsoft's 'trustworthy' OS
Tue Jul 2,11:58 AM ET
David Coursey
COMMENTARY--Stung by criticism of its current offerings, Microsoft seems to be pinning its hopes for a truly "trustworthy" operating system on a future version of Windows, code-named Palladium.
|
|||||||||||||||
I DIDN'T EXPECT to write about Palladium until the end of the year. That's because, when Microsoft started pre-briefing analysts this spring, the company made us promise not to talk about the new OS until near year-end.
But then some smart reporters--including Michael Cherry of Directions on Microsoft (a frequent radio guest of mine) and Newsweek's Steven Levy--discovered that Microsoft had filed for a patent on an operating system with built-in digital rights management features.
Microsoft tried to keep a lid on the story for as long as possible. But after finding out that Levy was going to print something, the company invited him to Redmond for two days to hear the whole story. Even then, Microsoft didn't expect the story to run so soon. When it discovered that Levy's story was about to hit the streets, Microsoft barely had time to warn those of us who were maintaining our silence that the secret was almost out of the bag.
I'm telling you all this because Microsoft would have been better off staying silent on this one. The reports that are surfacing are going to raise many more questions than Microsoft has answers for.
WHAT WE DO KNOW is this: Palladium will depend on a combination of hardware and software. While Microsoft will design the new OS, chipmakers such as AMD and Intel would design and implement new hardware--specifically, a chip on the motherboard supporting a technology called "public-key cryptography"--on which that OS would rely.
Public key cryptography allows users, software, and devices to authenticate themselves over a network. Palladium started as a way of using public key crypto to manage rights to entertainment content like music and movies. Then Microsoft engineers realized it could do the same thing for entire networks of computers, users, and applications.
According to Microsoft, Palladium is intended to protect a machine only if it's attacked via software or over a network. If someone had physical access to your machine, the crypto chip could be compromised and encrypted information on the machine would no longer be secure.
But beyond those sketchy details, a whole slew of questions remain:
Palladium remains a slippery subject, in large part because Microsoft seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth.
LEVY AND I, for example, have interviewed many of the same people. But in his article, he discussed features that I was explicitly told are not part of Palladium. But the reality is--and this is important--that Palladium provides a platform for building just about anything security-related that a developer might want to conjure up.
Palladium is like any other fundamental technology: You can build things with it that will be good for people, and you can build things with the potential to hurt people. And sometimes the same thing will be capable of both.
So while Palladium is explicitly designed to handle rights management--meaning it'll govern what software you are allowed to run and what you're allowed to do with documents and content--it could also be used for user authentication. If that happens (and it's an almost foregone conclusion), a Palladium computer would always know who is using it and what that user is doing--and could report the information to third-parties.
MICROSOFT PROMISES--and I believe that they're serious--that users will control their own personal information. But how this plays in the real world ( news - Y! TV), where users often have very little power, remains to be seen.
The good news is that we have time. While Levy says Palladium could start showing up as early as 2004, I'm betting most users won't start seeing it until 2006 or 2007--and then only if Microsoft is able to convince any number of organizations, governments, and even individuals that Palladium isn't more of privacy threat than a solution to privacy problems.
Microsoft has one key factor in its favor: the growing realization among its customers that we must do something, and that tomorrow's digital devices--and I'm talking much more than PCs here--need the trustworthiness that Microsoft claims Palladium will offer.
But is the world ready to trust Microsoft on something it has such a hard time explaining?
What do you think? Would you trust Microsoft to make a trustworthy operating system? Do you think the company can? TalkBack to me below!
Guess I won't get it ;)
If you read the story, the writer says he's known about this for some time but was sworn to secrecy.
That worries me.
That worries me.
It really shouldn't. Companies do that all the time so that information that could be false isn't spread - this generally is bad for stock prices. Here's what I mean:
Suppose Company A is going to release some new gadget. While they are still discussing what it will have and what it won't have, someone finds that they are planning on implementing Feature B. Word gets out that Feature B will be in this product, even though nothing is finalized. Eventually everyone gets so hyped about this Feature B, that when it turns out that Gadget C doesn't have it, Company A's stock drops because of disappointment. It has happened repeatedly.
I expect the same. Windows XP already turned many people away from windows, due to its integration with all of these Microsoft products. Unfortunately, Lynux has poor driver support from companies, and for many, it is very unwieldy. I think a lot of people will sacrifice privacy for ease of use in the end.
Maybe they should switch and get ease of use, driver support and privacy protection.
E-books were a monsterous flop because nobody likes the idea of registering what they read (not even East Germany had a system for registering books!) and losing the right to resell a book. Used books are a huge success on Amazon and Ebay. Palladium is an attempt to make the same kind of DRM pervasive.
Of course nobody would voluntarily let publishers, much less record companies and movie studios, keep track of what they read, watch, or listen to. That is creepy big-brotherism. And Palladium has a hardware component that is Big Brother Inside. There isn't anything to like about it.
I'm afraid this is going to become a problem.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.
What worries me is that the press is aware of a serious threat to our freedom, and they're treating it like it's just a business story.
Imagine if MS had gone to them and said, "We're working on software and laws to pasa a national gun registration cards. But don't tell anyone yet!"
I would *hope* the press could be counted on not to be lap-dogs, like they've chosen in this case.
Probably I'd be wrong, but I could hope!
That's what worries me.
MS went to the press and said, "We're planning on building this thing to take away computing freedom and passing laws to require it, now don't tell anyone!"
And the Press, like lap-dogs, kept it quiet!
At least the Newsweek fellow apparently refused to play the MS game. There is that, I suppose.
It's come to that, apparently.
My thinking too.
I'm wondering -- if a company had gone to reporters and said that they're putting together software to track all abortions in America, and were lobbying for laws to require all abortion clinics use the software:
Would the reporters just happily keep quiet then?
Somehow I doubt it.
Yep.
Now when MS has a sneaky plan to force computer control, the press happily holds it's tongue.
Yeesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.